We must pray that we learn to go forward in our mission, even when this small minority of Christians harangues us and calls us names. The form of fundamentalism in the US (who call themselves evangelicals) is a phenomenon of the last 150 years, with roots back to the Reformation. HOWEVER, and it is a very big however, they are a relatively small minority of Christians. The vast majority of the world's Christians are what is called "mainstream" in the US.
I guess that I have misunderstood or mis-stated.
Don't you consider TEC and the progressive branches of UMC to have a similar mission to ELCA? Do you believe that the WLF has a different mission?
As an aside, when I worshipped at an ELCA service last year, I checked some of their materials on belief. They made it quite clear that ELCA members had freedom with regard to what they believed with regard to homosexuality and homosexual pastors.
I understand this. And in precisely the same spirit I refuse to ignore Jesus when he asks sharply "What good does it do you to say that you follow me if you do not keep my commandments."
"Keeping Jesus' commandments", my mind, absolutely and without a doubt means physically doing, in the carnal world, what he said to do. What one believes in the mind does not cut it. It is what you DO that matters. So I read Jesus as saying explicitly that works are the central focal point of following him, and that following him is what gets a man through the gate. In other words, works are the very essence of salvation, and that what is in a man's head is meaningless. It's not what a man believes, or thinks, it's what he DOES that determines whether he passes or fails final judgment. That's what I read Jesus saying, it is very explicit and obvious to me, and I see all efforts to convert what Jesus said into "faith alone" as being the explicit rejection of Jesus Christ in favor of something else. I won't do it. At best I will smile and not politely, to not have a fight about it, but in the end I reject utterly any religion that teaches anything other than works-based salvation, because that's what Jesus commanded, and he's God.
The Catholic Church, my Church, in its desire for ecumenism, speaks in very diplomatic language and does not focus on this - and among certain more sophisticated minds than mine I guess even squares the circle, just as somehow the question of whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or just the Father, that has divided the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics for 1000 years, today is said by the intellectual elite to simply be a "misunderstanding". Well, I see Jesus BREATHING the Holy Spirit into the Apostles - and spirit - "pneuma" - is breath, so it's obvious to me that right there the Holy Spirit was literally physically proceeding out of the very mouth of Jesus into the Apostles. Which means that the Catholic version of the creed is just exactly literally right, obviously.
And I willing to follow the leaders and say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son. Sure. Why not. If that is how it needs to be put for Orthodox and Catholics to get alone, fine. But to say that the Holy Spirit does NOT proceed from the Son is obviously not true, just as to say that being acceptable to God does not primarily repose on the acts that one does during one's life is obviously not true.
How, then, could the Orthodox and I, or you and I, be "ecumenical"? We can eat together at picnics, do social work together, pray together, be kind and good to each other. That's ecumenism. For me to actually give up key aspects that are obviously true in order to get along with you is really quite impossible. And I'm sure that you would say no different.
So, that's what ecumenism is necessarily limited to, I think: the agreement to get along in amity despite the fact we believe really different things. More than that isn't possible unless God coverts one or both of us.
The Sacraments of the Catholic Church are indeed necessary for salvation. That is official Catholic doctrine and tradition. We do well to understand that.
As friendly as I am to Catholics, I cannot agree that following Jesus gets one through the gate. At least, that's not how I would choose to put it. That's what I mean by the Joint Declaration being misleading and even giving people a false impression.
Jesus said, "Come to me all you who are weary and heaven laden, and I will give you rest". It seems to me, the Catholic approach is to not worry about the lightness of the yoke but instead worry about if the yoke looks respectable. I think that's misguided.
They still understand baptism is not an absolute necessity because one can have a "baptism of desire". This is similar to the Lutheran understanding of the issue.
Of course you think it's misguided. You're a Lutheran! If you agreed with it, you'd be a Catholic. I don't actually believe things the way you put them there, but the parameters of what I actually believe, or you, are really beside the point when it comes to ecumenism. The point is that we really, truly, sincerely, in our hearts and our minds, believe different things about God and about what God wants. We believe the things we believe, each of us, for very good reasons, and neither of us is ever going to be persuaded by the other.
The ecumenical question, then, is "Now what?" Our ancestors 500 years ago sought a solution in clubbing each others' brains out. They were barbarians, of course. Moreover, it obviously didn't work. The Lutherans didn't win. Neither did the Catholics. Everybody sure lost, though, and both churches will be partly disgraced forever by the barbarism with which they behaved in that day.
The differences of opinion remain, and we're not going to club each other's brains out. So, now what? Cold War? Seems like a lot of energy wasted on nothing in a world that's going to worms all around us for reasons that are not-Catholic and not-Lutheran. Seems to me that we have an awful lot in common, and that men of goodwill and different theology can work alongside each other to do the sort of good in the world that I think Jesus said is necessary and you think he said was good but not necessary.
Shall the good go undone because we don't agree on the degree of necessity of it? Seems like a waste.
The thread's about ecumenism. We're never going to agree about some of the fundamentals of theology. Ecumenism isn't going to make us. It can let us contain the differences so we can cooperate. That's its utility, in my estimation.
But we don't even necessarily agree on ethics anymore on some crucial points, so we are potentially working at cross-purposes with each other. For instance, the ELCA and Catholic Church filed amicus briefs in favor of distinct positions in the Masterpiece case in the US Supreme Court.
In truth, Lutherans have always had a distinctive approach to ethics ever since Martin Luther said divorced people were free to remarry, but since the post-WWII era it's only gotten more divergent from the Catholic approach.
The apostles greatest concern was agreement based unity in the church.
The Pope is the living, visible, human leader of the Church, the final human authority on matters in the Church.
Just curious if you can point to any scripture that supports your statement?
I believe that you understand that the Church is built upon the rock that is Peter (or Peter's faith), and that the keys to the kingdom were given to him. The early Church accepted the Bishop of Rome as primus, the head patriarch among the 5 patriarchs. Much has happened since the days of the Roman armies, and Rome adding to the Creed. Rome made many mistakes. You also must know that Luther never intended to leave the Church.
There is lots and lots of scripture supporting this. These can be found by simply googling.
Probably. But you wouldn’t see it as such. This is another fundamental difference between religions. Ecumenism tried to find common ground for cooperation in spite of the differences in ecclesiology.Just curious if you can point to any scripture that supports your statement?
I believe that you understand that the Church is built upon the rock that is Peter (or Peter's faith), and that the keys to the kingdom were given to him. The early Church accepted the Bishop of Rome as primus, the head patriarch among the 5 patriarchs. Much has happened since the days of the Roman armies, and Rome adding to the Creed. Rome made many mistakes. You also must know that Luther never intended to leave the Church.
There is lots and lots of scripture supporting this. These can be found by simply googling.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/biblical-support-for-the-popeProbably. But you wouldn’t see it as such. This is another fundamental difference between religions. Ecumenism tried to find common ground for cooperation in spite of the differences in ecclesiology.
Probably. But you wouldn’t see it as such. This is another fundamental difference between religions. Ecumenism tried to find common ground for cooperation in spite of the differences in ecclesiology.